Status of Games and general whining from the new guy (Long)
Hi folks,
These are just games that I have either worked on directly or am curious
about. It is by no means all-inclusive:
Attal and attal-themes (Formerly attal-themes-medevial):
I've talked to the maintainer and have permission to hijack this
package. I've packaged up the 1.0-rc1 release from upstream and finally
got the rpath issue resolved yesterday but now I'm getting segfaults. I
could probably use some help on this package if anyone has time/patience.
Briqulolo:
Someone adopted this and has done a lot of work, why has it not been
uploaded?
Clanbomber:
I would love to see this ported to clanlib 0.8. I don't know how
difficult that is for someone with skills. I looked at it and it's
probably a little over my head.
Clanlib:
Sitting at 0.8. Can't currently upload because of clanbomber. We have
had requests to get it in. Would it be worth splitting out as a
separate package from the current clanlib?
Conquest:
I re-did the entire build system for this a while back. It's currently
broken but if I remove Bas's patch and use dh_makeshlibs, I can get it
to build but it gets a buttload of warnings on dh_shlibdeps.
Dominoblast:
This is a new game? Any reason it isn't uploaded yet?
Dreamchess:
New upstream, probably needs review and/or upload?
Fretsonfire:
What's the status of this sucker?
Gravitywars:
Some minors fixes, not sure if it is worth an upload or not?
Hex-a-hop:
Several bugfixes, should this get uploaded??
Holotz-castle:
New upstream and lots of work. I need to look at this again, I think I
was having a problem with this one.. Also, why is this not showing up
on the Autobuilder page??
Kball:
Several minor fixes. Is it worth an upload?
Ladder.app and Lapispuzzle.app:
These are two turds that I grabbed from the orphan list. I'm really
thinking I should probably ask for removal but last time I did that
(i.e. scottfree and poutchess) there was crying. They are "bug-free"
(probably because they suck and no one plays them) and have popcons of
around 300+.
Thousand Parsec packages (libtpproto-py, libtpclient-py, and
tpclient-pywx).
I've been trying to get these reviewed/uploaded for months. Now I have
a bigger problem. Upstream has a new release that requires wx2.8.
Moagg:
A few bug fixes and clean-up. Does this warrant an upload.
Openyahtzee:
I packaged this one from an RFP but I'll be damned if I can get the Roll
button to work. Need to debug.
Powermanga:
I did a new upstream a while back but it needs to be a dfsg tarball I
think. There is at least one font issue and I think Sam mentioned some
other files that need to be removed.
Quake2-data:
Another orphaned one I snagged. Really needs to be integrated in to the
games-package I guess but until that happens should this be carried?
What is our overall strategy for the Quake stuff? We need an engine.
Maybe an agenda item if there is an Extremudura meeting?
Ri-li:
New upstream and bugfixes. One bug mentions some type of "merged" data
package. I'm not sure what to do with this one??
Sabre:
I have some bugfixes in for gcc-4.3 but I'm not sure I know how to fix
_#433996_ <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=433996>
Starfighter:
Upstream considers this game "finished" in their eyes. But it has a lot
of bugs. What do we do with this sucker?
Supertux:
Several bugs and a 0.3.0 version in experimental. What's up with this
package??
Ultrastar-ng:
New upstream and more. Why not uploaded?
Warsow:
Andres has done a ton of work on this it appears. Is it ready to go??
Xwelltris:
I don't even think this package is ours. Should it be removed from SVN??
Generally speaking about all of the games, we have lots of bugs out
there. I will try to do what I can but I'm not much of a hacker so...
Is there some better method for keeping a status of what is going on
with the games in general. I.E. could we link SVN to a wiki page
somewhere to leave comments for the team about what needs to be done,
why something isn't uploaded, problems, etc??
Am I overstepping my involvement again and should just shut up?? :-)
Thanks as always,
Barry deFreese
Reply to: